Legislation is only the beginning to promoting landfill diversion. A bolder step forward would be to set a waste collection strategy too, writes Geoff Johnston
I’ve attended the conferences, laboured over the legislation, been baffled by the big-budget capital expenditure, the built-in obsolescence and marvelled at the monolithic feats of engineering, yet I still come back to the same question: what is so difficult about recycling material from our households and businesses so that we avoid dumping the leftovers of our lives in landfills or, even worse, putting it all through an ultra-expensive system to eke out a little energy?
First things first. I am assuming that, in one way or another, we are all trying to achieve the same goal: greater than 75% diversion from landfill for the lowest possible price.
Most enlightened governments are encouraging, demanding or compelling their societies to adopt regimes of recycling to avoid landfill and divert waste to other uses. Globally we have begun doing this. But my point is that we need to have begun well.
What does this mean in practice? It is clear to me that greater diversion from landfill cannot be achieved without appropriate legislation and appropriate waste collection services. Addressing these items sequentially, two pieces of legislation are critical to the success of this solution:
• Container deposit legislation. Under this system, a small deposit is paid by the consumer when purchasing a drink, to be refunded on return of the drinks container. This form of extended producer responsibility reduces the amount of packaging entering the waste stream. It has proven to be effective in the State of South Australia, which has solved many of the issues surrounding the management of recyclables (except expanded polystyrene) within the domestic waste and recycling regime.
• Legislation to phase out and ultimately ban polyethylene film shopping bags. Not only does this reduce litter generally, but it also enhances the attributes of food organics diversion when used in conjunction with biodegradable film bags. Potential contamination by PE film is removed, thus cleaning up food organics diversion. This would go a long way to relieving the cause of methane in our landfills.
Turning to waste collection, processing the vast majority of household waste requires a four-pronged approach and assumes source separation. (I haven’t seen an alternative that convinces me to shift from this method.) Once again, we need to begin well.
Wheelie bins
Three wheelie bins should be supplied to residents for three different streams of domestic waste:
• recyclables - one 240-litre bin (collected every two weeks) for cardboard, paper, plastics, glass and metal cans
• green waste - one 240-litre bin (collected every two weeks) for garden organics and Bio Bags from the kitchen
• residual waste - one 140-litre bin (collected weekly or, preferably, every two weeks) for the remaining household waste.
Bio baskets
A bio basket and an annual supply of certified biodegradable bags combine to form an essential ingredient for the kitchen in any household. The bio basket is an open moulded basket lined with corn starch (biodegradable) bags. The bags hold food organics waste, which can then be transferred easily from the kitchen to the garden organics wheelie bin.
Robotic collection
Robotic-arm collection vehicles (RACVs) are very efficient in their collection characteristics and provide an excellent platform for a clean collection that has less than 0.2% contaminants in organics and 10%-20% in dry recyclables. The vehicles, also known as side-loaders, are purpose-built for wheelie bin collections and feature a single operator and CCTV to view and accept/reject contents of the bins, thereby largely avoiding contamination of recycling and organics streams.
Hard refuse
A continuous ‘on call’ collection service for hard refuse should be provided to the residential community up to six times per year. Hard refuse is that fraction of the waste stream that usually is delivered by the resident to a transfer station; it includes non-putrescible items such as white goods, large waste household items such as timber, iron, carpets and old furniture.
What is the result from adopting this type of legislation and collection? Well, the result is greater than 75% diversion from landfill, quality saleable composts, and a high level of recyclables available for direct re-manufacture or for export. Furthermore, this does not require incineration, and can be achieved for about E 80 per household per year.
While this sounds ideal in theory, I should add a cautionary note: of course, the support of governments, increased efficiency in our industry and public education is vital to the success of these methods of diversion. There will, no doubt, be geographic and demographic obstacles to overcome, fine-tuning to implement and new innovations and ideas to incorporate. But we will have begun well. And as Aristotle once said: ‘well begun is half done’.
 |
GEOFF JOHNSTON is Chief Executive Officer of Eastern Waste Management Authority Inc. (East Waste), Australia.
e-mail: geoff@eastwaste.com
To comment on this article or to see related features from our archive, go to www.waste-management-world.com
